| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 528/10 |
| Hearing date | 14 Dec 2010 |
| Determination date | 23 December 2010 |
| Member | A Dumbleton |
| Representation | P King; K Sutton |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | King v Physio Rehab Group Ltd and Ors |
| Other Parties | Tepid Baths Physiotherapy Ltd, College Rifles Physio & Rehab Centre Ltd |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Identity of employer – Authority found applicant’s terms and conditions of employment with third respondent continued to apply to work at second respondent – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Redundancy – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed for redundancy – Respondent given formal notice terminating lease or licence under which operated at second respondent – Subsequently, respondent gave applicant one month notice terminating employment for redundancy – Respondent argued applicant not unjustifiably dismissed and outlined how applicant consulted before dismissal – Authority found no dispute third respondent in deciding to dismiss applicant genuinely motivated by closure of operating premises – Found respondent told applicant redundancy was “technical redundancy” arising from closure of operating premises – Found any comment applicant made about future plans made only as general observations of sort people made in passing – Found respondent failed to consult with applicant when required – Found rather than presenting applicant with proposal for consideration before decision to terminate, respondent assumed employees knew employment would be terminated following closure of operating premises – Found to simply draw attention to possible or likely future event that could adversely impact business, and to urge employees to prepare, not adequate consultation in redundancy situation – Found consultation before decision to terminate not futile – Found applicant entitled to information about redeployment opportunities before decision to dismiss – Found respondent could have made better informed decision if received response from applicant – Found dismissal unjustified – Remedies – Found no contributory conduct – Found applicant entitled to $1,500 reimbursement of lost wages – Found compensation should reflect that if applicant fully and properly consulted really likelihood would not have been dismissed and instead redeployed – Found aggravating factor that respondent decided to employ applicant’s colleague at new premises – Authority considered no intention to harm and employment relatively short – Found $7,500 compensation appropriate – PENALTY – Claim for penalty declined – Physiotherapist |
| Result | Application granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($1,500) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($7,500) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s4;ERA s4(1A);ERA s4(4);ERA s63A;ERA s103A;ERA s134 |
| Cases Cited | Simpsons Farms Ltd v Aberhart [2006] ERNZ 825;Telecom New Zealand Limited v Nutter [2004] 1 ERNZ 315;Julian v Air New Zealand Limited [1994] 2 ERNZ 612 |
| Number of Pages | 13 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 528_10.pdf [pdf 62 KB] |